56 



(Fragm., ii., 135), and in plate 39 of PI. Vict., and sometimes 

 quite smooth. The leaves vary much in size. 



Helichrysum leucopsldium, DC. Bordertown (Dist. T). 



Cassinia aculeata, R. Br., C. laevis, R. Br., and Humea 

 punctulata, F. v. M. In these Transactions, xii., 63 (1889), 

 Professor Tate wrote : — 



1 'Cassinia laevis. This proves to be conspecific with Humea 

 punctulata , and the correct designation will be Cassinia punc- 

 tulata, F. v. M. and Tate. It is recorded as Humea cassiniacea 

 in the Ardrossan list, and as Cassinia alasia, F. v. M., MS., 

 from Coonalpyn." , 



The proposal here made to substitute such a combination 

 as C. punctulata (H. punctulata only dates from 1863) for 

 C. laevis, which dates from 1817, is, of course, impossible. In 

 his Census at p. 67 of the same volume of the transactions, and 

 in Fl. Extratrop., S.A., published in the following year (1890), 

 Tate retains both C. laevis, C. punctulata, and C '. aculeata. 

 Mueller, in his 2nd Census (1889) dropped Humea punctulata, 

 but did not reproduce the specific name under Cassinia. Thus, 

 in his Flora, Tate appears desirous of introducing C. 

 punctulata as a species intermediate between aculeata and 

 laevis, and in his description (p. 123) he repeats the old error 

 which was made as regards Humea punctulata ("one flower in 

 each headlet"). This mistake arose because the original 

 specimens submitted to Mueller were in bud only (Fragm., iii., 

 137), and it was repeated by Bentham (Fl. Aust., iii., 590). 

 Turning to the Tate Herbarium we find the only specimens 

 labelled "C. aculeata" are from the eastern States, the leaves 

 typically scabrous-hispid, with short hairs on the upper face. 

 Under "C. laevis" are some specimens from the Flinders and 

 Gawler Ranges, the branchlets white-tomentose, the panicle 

 or corymb varying greatly in size and density, the lateral 

 branches sometimes exceeding the inflorescence. The type of 

 C. laevis came from the head of Spencer Gulf. Under "C. 

 punctulata" Tate has placed various specimens collected at 

 places from Port Elliot to Melrose, with leaves similarly 

 glabrous above, but with the branchlets less hairy and often 

 viscid. They do not appear specifically different from C. laevis, 

 and that was evidently Mueller's opinion also. Nor do I think, 

 with the specimens we now possess, that a specific difference 

 can be maintained between C. aculeata and C '. laevis. At first 

 I thought this could be done under Brown's original formula — 

 that C. aculeata had leaves hispid above, while G. laevis had 

 them smooth — but in the 90-mile Desert, just west of Border- 

 town, I collected specimens with the young leaves scabrous and 

 hispid, and the older ones glabrous and smooth, in some cases 

 even the young leaves were glabrous. Thus it would seem 



